Aug 30 2007

Senator Craig Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Published by at 7:50 am under All General Discussions

I had hoped someone I know who interned with Senator Craig would post on the man they knew (and this person still may, stay tuned). But what I have heard from this person is total disgust with the spineless and back stabbing GOP. While some on the right can go around claiming things like El Presidente Jorge Bush is a traitor without impugnity (or facts), why is they are given a pass for making the conservative movement look like crap and Craig cannot get the benefit of the doubt. Mac Ranger went and read the arrest report and it was all foot tapping and some vague signals – nothing more. Can Craig’s critics make the claim they read the facts before making fools of themselves? Now come the calls for resignation and the forced removal of the man from his committee positions and we have the lynching of Craig – which followed the lynching of Gonzales, the lynching of Harriet Miers, and the continuous backstabbing of Bush. Folks, the conservatives/GOP are out of gas. They cannot stand by each other, respect each other, stand by their commitments, nor come up with any good ideas. All they are good at is failing. Failing to pass legislation, failing to providing an example of leadership and civility, and failing to stand by their brethren.

In nut shell these are the kind of people you don’t want with you in a fox hole. While under attack they yell at you and call you names (sticks and stones) and then runaway and starting shooting at you from the rear. And that is why I am a proud conservative Independent and not part of the ever sinking GOP. Shut up and let his state’s voters make the decision themselves. Everyone else should really just butt out.

Addendum: Yes, I am aware he plead guilty. But then we must accept his reasons for doing this – which again do make sense if the arrest report is shows no evidence of a crime, just hints of one. He paid his fine so therefore did his time. Even in the worst case scenario he paid his debt to society. Now maybe the GOP can pay its debt to the American people and do something useful to the nation instead of their own electorial prospects.

Addendum: One wonders why so many liberals become lawyers when the lot of them seem so ignorant of the law. A plea of guilty is not PROOF of guilt. In many misdemeanor cases it is just acceptance of the charge – a no contest strategy. Why spend time and money when a fine will get you past it just as easy. To the English language challenged left accepting a fine is not proof of motive or intent. The police have no evidence and no jury determined motive or intent. Therefore there is no proof of Craig’s motives or intents.

Some folks would do well to check a dictionary before they claim a plea is proof – it is not.

31 responses so far

31 Responses to “Senator Craig Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty”

  1. paulpsd says:

    “Also I didn’t say a nolo contendere plea and a guilty plea were the same. But read any law book and a judge takes a nolo contendere plea and treats it LIKE a guilty plea.”

    Right. The reason you mentioned nolo contendere is because, if had Craig pleaded that, he wouldn’t necessarily be guilty, and the title of this post wouldn’t be so patently absurd. However, since Craig pleaded guilty, that whole argument is moot and you only brought it up to muddy the issue. Right?

    There is a reason why there is both a guilty and a no contest plea, and eventually your professors will explain that to you. (Short answer: they’re completely different.) Until then, if I were you, I would try not to hold forth on these topics.

  2. Soothsayer says:

    Paulpsd -

    You are just sooooooooooo mean to Crzy4 . . . you probably think Miss South Carolina should keep quiet about geography and maps, too.

  3. paulpsd says:

    “you probably think Miss South Carolina should keep quiet about geography and maps, too.”

    LOL. Yeah, you’re right. And for the exact same reason!

  4. Crzy4politks says:

    Glad you think I’m like South Carolina. At least I have facts to back my statements up. All you two have is nasty language and name calling.

  5. paulpsd says:

    Crzy4politks said:
    “At least I have facts to back my statements up.”

    And what facts are those? The facts in this case include that Craig is no longer innocent because he pleaded guilty, in complete contradiction to what the title of this post says.

    Crzy4politks said:
    “All you two have is nasty language and name calling.”

    You’re flailing now. I have engaged in no nasty language nor name calling. Try again.

  6. jake says:

    entering a plea of “guilty” is about as far away as you can get from presumption of innocence. your headline is misleading. the matter has already been adjudicated. the period where a presumption of innocence applied was BEFORE Craig entered a plea of guilty.

    the behavior he exhibited in the restroom is the exact same behavior that has led to the arrest of scores of men seeking sex in public restrooms. the foot-touching, the waving of the hand under the stall, are exactly what undercover officers look for. which is why Craig pled guilty. to a crime.

    have any of you EVER touched the foot of someone in an adjacent stall? or passed your hands palm up under the divider? no, you haven’t. no reasonable person would, and no reasonable person on a jury would buy Craig’s pathetic explanation. which is why he tried to keep it quiet.

    when he resigns, will you admit that the senator is a closeted gay sex addict who enjoys anonymous public trysts?

  7. Terrye says:

    The left is so tacky.

  8. paulpsd says:

    Tacky? Is that all you’ve got left, an impotent bit of name-calling?

    If, to a republican, it’s considered tacky to hold politicians to the same standard, regardless if they’re from the party you support or not, then sign me up! I’m tacky! Gauche! Uncouth! All of the above!

    I’m glad we’ve sorted that out.

    However, what does that make you? Is there a word for someone who rallies around “his team” under any and all circumstances, who always puts party ahead of country or morality, whose values change with the wind? Any suggestions, Terrye?

  9. legaleagle says:

    Oh my God, THIS IS LIKE A DREAM COME TRUE!!

    \”I don’t care. I say he didn’t do anything wrong . . . .Unless we want to make thought crimes and foot tapping impeachable offenses, this is totally stupid. . . \”

    Absolutely; he did NOTHING wrong. After all, **************(Offending remarks Deleted). Undoubtedly, we can expect a Republican landslide in 2008, from all those \”members\” of the electorate who identify with the American values of the Republican.

    \”Not to mention, “pleaded guiltyâ€? is not even correct use of the English language.\”

    That really is quite fascinating, even more indicative of the standard Republican mindset than the unnatural attraction to exceptional male girth. Specifically, who else but a Repubican would be willing to make an absolute baboon of himself without being bothered to check
    a dictionary (or, in the case of Crzy4whatever, a basic legal text).

    \”Hate to burst your bubble but I am not and never have been a Republican.\”

    Oh, yes, we hear that bit of brilliance all the time. Of course, it makes no difference whatever. The point isn\’t what party you\’re registered to, but the fact that there is no more enthusiastic supporter of the sick ideology of Republicanism on the planet Earth.

    Now feel free to get back to establishing the association of the Republican Party with guilt-free toe-tapping in public toilets.

  10. Thomas Jefferson says:

    A plea of guilty is an admission of guilt. During questioning by the judge one of the questions asked is “Are you pleading guilty because you are in fact guilty?” A plea of no contest has nothing to do with sentencing, it is a statement to the court that you are not contesting the charges against you. You might try understanding the ramifications of pleas and read the Boykin case before spouting off on something you know nothing about.

  11. paulpsd says:

    Well, I’d say this thread certainly laid to rest the ridiculous claim made in the thread’s title, eh?

    Any other mad claims you want to make? Maybe you’ve got some ideas what happened to Iraq’s WMDs?